nobby.nobbs

What I've posted on the GAGB forum regarding the guideline/rule issue..... "The gagb list guidelines which are taken by Groundspeak reviewers to be rules. The end result Is that the gagb write the rules for Groundspeak. People who are not happy get told that there's nothing the reviewers can do, speak to gagb. Then the gagb say that they're just guidelines . Catch 22. It is likely that non members will be unable to use the gagb forums soon. A move i think is sensible . This will generate more ill feeling because non members will be caught in a trap of the reviewers making. A solution could be, take down the guidelines and write a best practice guide that specifically states it should not be used as a set of rules. Then an open discussion can take place on the Groundspeak forum regarding what rules to use. This worked with the urban rule, which should've been handled by Groundspeak reviewers as I believe they received the request, or by a group with representatives from each listing site. Otherwise the gagb will continue to be berated regarding the rules....regardless of how many times someone corrects them and says guidelines." just thought people might be interested. It's the reason why I began a poll on the GAGB forum regarding whether the guidelines should be removed

My point was that a small group of people, with all the best intentions and with honourable intentions at that, are, without a mandate or tacit approval of the majority, creating guidelines and influencing as they see fit Groundspeak. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with any of the guidelines. The problem is that they are releasing guidelines knowing that they WILL be accepted as new rules by the Groundspeak reviewers but are then hiding behind the excuse that as they are guidelines they cannot be held accountable. Now this is disingenuous, we all know that a new GAGB guideline is almost definitely going to be adopted as a new reviewer rule. The committee do and all the members do and everyone who has an issue with the GAGB do. So continuing to release them as such just breeds angst. If the GAGB is to continue then should the guidelines be called rules? Stand up for what the organisation believes and state clearly that they consider them to be rules. It wont bring anymore angst than is already the case but does remove the image of hiding behind semantics of the meaning of rules and guidelines. Shouldn't Groundspeak be the holder of the rules? The guidelines are almost exclusively for Groundspeak though they are a suggested idea for others. Would it not be better to host them on the "follow the arrow" site or on this forum for users of Groundspeak to be able to debate. My fear is that the GAGB, set up to shout out against injustices and fight for the rights of the UK cacher has found that they have a "special relationship" with Groundspeak and do not wish to risk that by rocking the boat too much or engaging with other organisations. Resulting in them becoming very close to a second group of people who work for Jeremy for free to administer customer complaints with a local email and phone number plus to administer the complex land owner agreements and local rules. That is a worthwhile and very needed job. We need it to be done....but not by the GAGB. Not unless the constitution wishes to acknowledge that times have changes and the "special relationship" with Groundspeak and it's reviewers means that it's part of the umbrella organisation.

The purpose of the gagb is what has troubled me. Guidelines rules Terracaching use them on a person to person ad hoc basis. With no acceptance of their validity. Opencaching follow the idealism but want to have their own. Groundspeak accept them as their rules, which surely means they would be better published in graculus "follow the arrow" site. Landowner agreements Similar for opencaching and terra as before. Accepted as Groundspeak limits, again should be could be published in follow the arrow. Forums Facebook is proving to be a much better open discussion area for people. If you have a specific issue with a company then that companys own forum should be the main port of call. Complaints to the company. Again direct to them unless there's a demonstrated track record of actions and successes. Martin Lewis has taken on big business and won many battles. Calls and emails from police and landowners. If a cache needs removing then surely a direct representative of that company is the port of call. Someone who actually has authority to insist it is removed. If its a more general enquiry then this can be done by a user group but most firms have a suitable number. There is no legal requirements for the gagb to exist so why should anyone be compelled to join an organisation which is influencing a multi national company in how it provides its services. How are the gagb different from Mary whitehouse and her campaigns to limit the content of the media and what the public is allowed to do? Supporters of the gagb. Please please shout me down and blow holes in what I say. Only that way does the organisation gain credibility and achieve a mandate. Then it will be able to stand up and say , our existence and purpose have been tested and found fit for purpose .

It's not about whether the GAGB are at fault regarding how much Groundspeak respond to complaints. All I can say is from personal recent experience; I saw an issue regarding how camping events were being interpreted, I tried to raise them with the reviewers and got nowhere so I raised the issue here. The problem was picked up by the customer services and an active discussion was begun. The GAGB declined to engage with the matter. The end result was that the requirements were amended due to one individual asking the company and it's users to discuss it. Does Groundspeak actually have to listen to us that much? Ever tried to get Microsoft, Apple, McDonalds, etc to amend their company policy? This thread is to engage people to discuss the role of the GAGB. I can see the purpose of the GAGB historically but does that still hold true?

The idealisms behind the original thoughts behind gagb were genuine in that they wanted to be able to influence Groundspeak, the (as yet) non profit making firm, in the running of caching in the UK so that there was a voice to stand up to the USA firm. They did this by working with the then reviewers to amend the rules imposed by Groundspeak, so that they better fitted the UK, allowing caches near railways and similar. The GAGB have attempted several times to communicate with other firms that run versions of caching with, to the best of my knowledge, no success. The only one that pays any lip service to them is Garmin's site that lists them as local guidelines to be adhered to , the others have just ignored attempts to connect. The reviewers and Groundspeak have used the GAGB to hold the list of landowner agreements and set the guidelines for cache placements. This is effectively only used by one firm, who are now a profit making organisation. Groundspeak have a very good situation going, they have volunteers publishing caches for them with no reward, and they have the GAGB to make the rules and take the heat when the Police or landowners etc need to complain or impose new guidelines to distance themselves from the negative publicity that comes attached. So... effectively the GAGB act as an admin call centre or, a customer complaints department! The individuals on the committee are honourable people who believe that they are doing their bit to enhance the hobby and stand up to the non UK firm, though in practice they do not appear to stand up against Groundspeak in any way-well, at least not publically. It's a very difficult position. Groundspeak are not really accountable, the reviewers have openly said that they do not represent UK cachers and are just representatives of Groundspeak. So... who is there to loudly and publicly stand up for the UK cacher who may have an issue? Do we need such a body as The GAGB? How can we accountably elect those without the call of elitism? They must carry the mandate of the community otherwise they cannot impose anything upon them. The counter to this is that too many people do not bother to vote in the general elections of the UK, let alone to vote people onto a committee that administers guidelines of a hobby. How many actually have any idea that the GAGB exist, or what role they take when all that they do is download an app and occasionally look for a cache. Those that do know of, and are aware of the guidelines... how many of those actually pay any attention to them, or just say that they have and still place caches saying that they have adhered to them? Should the apathy of the masses prevent the few from setting an example of good practice? To whom do the guidelines even apply? Do the setters of Terracaches,Opencaches ( of either type) or Navicache even realise that they are bound by them? Or, is it just a list of Groundspeak local rules that are imposed upon only those that choose to use that site? Reviewers are able to impose them without incurring angst against themselves (even when they are ignored) The urban rule is one such case, the problem was passed to the GAGB to sort out and take the blame but it effectively only gets imposed by Groundspeak. This is not an attack on the committee, it's not even a full blown attack on the GAGB - rather it addresses issues raised by many people over the years questioning the validity of the committee and the organisation as a whole. Telling people that they have to join to make a difference is correct but also incorrect. WHY should they join something that imposes rules, by proxy, for Groundspeak. They never asked the GAGB to exist. There are things that should be done by Groundspeak and their Reviewers, that are at the moment, being passed to the GAGB because it gives them plausible deniability. Time has moved on for the hobby, Groundspeak and the GAGB; the number of people engaging in the hobby has increased exponentially further decreasing the mandate that the committee have. I am obviously speaking for myself. I was wrestling with these thoughts when I decided that I needed to leave the committee, to take time out and see if others could find any answers to the questions or to see if I could find any myself from a different perspective. To date, if I am very honest, I haven't. I will say again and very clearly, this is not an attack on the committee personally, and I hope that they will realise that. I consider them to be personal friends and I can only hope that they consider me the same after this post, but will understand if they do not.

new guidelines for camping events This has just been published. Thanks for everyone's input on this matter and to the people at Groundspeak and all the reviewers for their work to coming up with what looks like a very sensible easy to use solution to the situation. Sorry if I "irritated" or worse anyone during this, I hope that the result does justify the means. I also hope that anyone that falls into that category will accept my handshake and we can all move on. So once again thanks for all the hard work.

It would an interesting financial experiment. I doubt the business could support it. It would solve disparities and inequality though. We can't call them our reviewers , it's been clearly stated that they do not represent us. They work for the company. They have said for a long time that they are just following the rules and there is no wriggle room. That doesn't seem a universal opinion , I wonder if all reviewers feel quite so constrained. A small band of paid employees would probably get through the publishing of caches not that much slower. Have a problem with the company? Well there's little point talking to someone who doesn't represent you and getting a lackey's ear now is difficult so would we see that getting better or worse? It's not an easy job being a reviewer but if you're not part of the solution could that not make you a part of the problem?

Auction them off and make some cash for yourself, just give us a heads up i'm sure there's one or two that would go well with mine lol

It is good to have honesty from a reviewer saying that he has been instructed, presumably, that he represents the company and not the UK cachers. It does make me question regarding the selection process and who they are picking. I don't mean that in a disrespectful manner just you're a UK cacher yourself and you've been asked to work for free for a company, you are then instructed that you will follow religiously the policy as interpreted by person or persons unknown without question. I say interpreted because it has become clear that there are different beliefs held by different reviewers all around the world. So why do the job if you openly say that you're not going to stand up for UK cachers? Surely that only means that you're doing it for the kudos and ego trip? Again I know that there are many people that do that so that's fine but not often admitted to. I speak from experience of the GAGB, we all know that it's mostly toothless. They rarely make a stand, they don't carry a mandate because hardly anybody votes for them and if they do make a stand they hit the brick wall of the reviewers. It's been said that we would end up with American reviewers......how exactly would we notice the change....except that we'd be able to publish many caches that we cant at the moment.

Red Duster, you must get a tremendous amount of hassle, justified and not. It does still come down to a simple fact though. Not one of the paying or non paying customers of Groundspeak had any say in your nomination. None of them voted for you. None of them know your views on any subject. We are not privy to the dynamics and beliefs of each of the reviewers. Who favours what. At the end of the day you could all be sat on your private forum picking the next reviewer on the basis of who is most likely to be the biggest yes person. We should get to see the deliberations of that forum, you're there partly as representatives of the company but also partly for us. Either way those discussions should be visible for the scrutiny of the customers.

Thank you

I think I need to say sorry for rabble rousing and causing trouble. I may have been over zealous in my methods to raise an issue or two. Thank you all who have agreed, disagreed, been hypocritical and generally discussed these matters. I tried to explain to someone last night the reasons behind it so I'll try and explain it here too. I have been feeling disenfranchised by the nearly impossible task of having a meaningful discussion with a chance of altering an issue. Reviewers have a difficult task but at the end of the day you signed up for it. We never had a say in your appointment and you're not really all that accountable. If we raise issues here and list examples we get told not to like naughty kids because "mistakes happen" if we don't evidence our argument we get stone walled. Told that the adults are discussing the matter and we will be given their divine judgements soon. It's even suggested that we should calm the f down because we're doing ourselves no favours. Which suggests we will be punished. The only other option people have is to kowtow to the deities and alter and amend until their tick boxes are satisfied. So I over reacted and made enough noise for Sandy to hear me. This made me and the ideas bad but I fail to see how else we're meant to get heard when the reviewers et al are too busy preening to listen and challenge existing imbalances . I'm going to get the usual suspects now saying very predictable responses and I thank them for that, I can only hope that there are one or two souls who feel as strongly as I do that a small group of people have lost sight of their complete role. Maybe it Is time for fresh thinking maybe not. But sorry for having disturbed some peoples slumber.

A true point but as has been mentioned if you have adopted this rule then it needs to be discussed on your forums. Oh and a little bird suggested to me that it was a Groundspeak reviewer that was originally approached by the police and decided that he felt the guidelines be negotiated by the GAGB and not himself. If this happened then the exact reasons behind it are interesting. Either way it's a matter for your forum don't you think?

So if I'm understanding this right. It's not ok to list a camping event because Wendy cant camp but its ok to list one miles onto moorland where she might not be able to get to? That it was ok for some events to be published if you got lucky with your reviewer but other people should have theirs refused. That its ok for the company to have a clear open to all policy or they wont list it, unless the people not able to go are disabled or Muslim. I'm sorry I've ruffled some feathers and caused some people trouble. However , this matter was not being dealt with it was sat waiting for someone to raise it with Seattle.

i really don't want to have to point out that the company is breaching uk law by allowing the disability discrimination act to be broken by listing an event that disabled people cannot get to when they have said that they will not allow camping only as it is clear discrimination. likewise pub events because it immediately excludes muslims. If we can exclude non campers in certain cases then the precedent is set that the company is not being discriminatory to those specific groups because it acknowledges that events cannot be open to all. That in a reasonable world events are listed and it is down to people to decide if they wish to attend or not on an event to event basis. Once it is clearly stated that the company will not tolerate even the slightest discrimination as regards non campers and that all events must be open to all then they create the issue that every single event has to be open to everyone regardless or ability, race, religion or any other factor. It is the decision that has just been taken that has made this situation arise. Like i said, we were asking for a common sense approach that allowed the celebration of diversity and not closing down the options left to everyone. The company chose the other route. I'm sure that this is going to reduce the number of events this year and potentially open the door to some people being accused of things that they never realised they were guilty of.

I host a regular pub event, and if events are going to be more stringently reviewed to ensure they're inclusive and all welcome, does this mean that pub events will no longer be allowed? My interpretation is that you'll be fine. I guess this depends on your (or more likely Groundspeaks) definition of inclusive.... Surely everyone is welcome to attend an event in a "Public House", but some will choose not to based on their own free will and beliefs. Doesn't mean they were excluded, just that they declined to attend. Jon but it's being held in a location that WE KNOW CLEARLY will exclude a section of the community on the basis of race or religion. It is therefore not open to all, it's not like they have a choice! They have been raised to believe that they are not allowed to enter on pain of being sent to hell. We may not agree with their views but it is most certainly a discriminatory act to hold an event in any public house on this ruling.

OK sorry but can I ask you to clear something for me please Sandy? Was this written by Groundspeak? or by the UK team which was then supported by Groundspeak? No disrespect to you Sandy but I would have appreciated a reply from someone I know - as in a UK reviewer. Finally can I ask you to stop publishing caches that are a 4 or 5 terrain as I can't physically do them as you can see by my photo on the Groundspeak advertisement for Premium members and also my written words. 61, fat and unfit do not do terrain 4 or 5 oh on second thoughts make that a 3 as well Also you state 'guidelines' - are guidelines actual rules? To my mind there is a big difference between the meanings of the words. Sorry to be asking so many questions as usually I do not 'stir ' within these forums but I do feel strongly about this This is a very valid point, you will see from this page: Disabled people's rights in everyday life that it would be considered discrimination regarding this act if disabled people "in accessing or becoming a member of a larger private club (25 or more members)" If they were excluded by virtue of events held as described surely that would infringe the act? just thought you should be aware!

Thank you Sandy for getting this matter looked at. It;s good to know that there will now be a level playing field, I do still feel that this is the wrong decision, but the decision has been made. We will now no longer see events that are Women only, camping only, .... one could argue that up mountains, on islands and indeed in public houses and bars are now not permitted. I'm so sorry that I have made this this case on a worldwide basis. The eventing scene is less rich for this decision.

There have been lots of comments saying why not have a flash mob or just be happy to hold a pub event and let those who want to camp do so and those that don't don't and sometimes it works really well. There's a great campsite that either allows visitors or theres a great pub. sometimes a flashmob at the gate does look inclusive. sometimes it isn't possible. sometimes it would be better to let people know about a camping event ahead of time. Sometimes it might look like a " team incredible can't be bothered" camp People might feel they were intruding because the gc event is a flash or in the pub. Give the cache setter the option of campers only. Not to exclude anyone but to give them an incentive to join in. It's not really about the smiley. Not allowing it Is the thing that excludes people because the camping will be organised via groups of fb friends not open to all gc event pages. So, this leveling of the playing field will actually make the events more inclusive at better locations. Not In a layby , not in a past its sell by date pub. But in the best location that is available to the cache setter, :-)

Just thought that I would add a little bit of information to the mix. I've had it confirmed that the original event that I mentioned was published, as it stands straight away without any discussion amendments or trouble. This , I feel , negates the usual " no precedents" rule because it was published in the normal way. There was nothing wrong with it as far as the American reviewer was concerned. It clearly stated that you would be expected to be there for a time period overnight and that you needed to camp out with the necessary survival gear. I only add this to hopefully make the situation much easier to resolve. There isn't anything to really discuss. The was a misunderstanding in the UK reviewers field where they thought that it was not possible to list events where camping was obligatory. This belief has now been shown to be incorrect. There's no need for any lengthy chats or angst. No one in the community is going to be pulling out the pitch forks and storming the castle lol It was an honest genuine mistake and all that needs to be done is rectify it so that we can sort out this years events with ease

Great that you are discussing this Sandy, regarding your point that this was a specific concept, you will find that there has been several very similar camping events in this country on Dartmoor that have had to negotiate many little hurdles to be published. Maybe New York Reviewer could furnish us with any negotiations that he felt necessary prior to publishing that particular cache and then we would be able to see that this wasn't just published without any concern ( like we would all hope he did) then we would be able to see if it was a specific one off event or if there was special dispensation given..... or whether this in fact never once raised itself as an issue. That would clarify the point to the community as a whole

Thanks Sandy, that's what we've been asking for. The idea behind this is not to try and exclude the non campers from attending camping events. There is a different atmosphere when spending the night as a group of campers. Event setters were being asked to jump through lots of hoops to ensure that it was possible to allow people that wanted to drive by and spend 30 seconds just to log the cache to log it....at the end of the day those people can just go ahead and log it anyway, they're not going to get the same experience as the people camping. It's not been possible for events to be held, until recently, if a single penny was charged to day visitors. All that we as a community have been asking is that more allowance is given to event setters so that people can see that the event is designed for an overnight camp. We'll prob hold a seperate event during one evening anyway but that there should be acknowledgement given to those people who want to camp. So it could happen that some events meant that non campers couldn't log it. but only because they didn't want to stay overnight. The counter argument that we have given is that events have always been held around the world that are not all inclusive and open to all. there have been women only, camping only, boat trips to islands, if we really want to be pedantic any event inside a public house or bar is not open as devote Muslims may struggle to come inside. But the camping community have always said that they do not see that as an issue just like they do not see 5*5* caches that need scuba or mountaineering gear as a problem. I know one event or cache does not give a precedent for another but it does give a huge sense of resentment that there appears to be one set of rules for some people and another set for us.

Sandy, thanks for your reply. I'm well versed in the "no precedents" rule. However. The issue has always been that we have been told by our reviewers that Camping events were NEVER allowed to be only for campers because it was a rule that had been set in stone by America. That there was no possibility of this ever not being the case because the Americans just didn't understand what the British camping events were like. That there was no point trying to explain it to them and get them to change THEIR rule because it just wouldn't make sense to them. The really great news is, now that they obviously DO understand what it's like, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever for our reviewers to either just go ahead and do the sensible thing and allow camping only events or AT THE VERY LEAST make immediate representations to Jeremy to clarify this situation before any more UK camping events are held up or not allowed due to, what has obviously been a misunderstanding of a rule that doesn't seem to exist. So this is great news Hope that clarifies that particular point

Obviously my error. He's been around so long I'm not sure there was a difference when he started. But it doesn't detract from the great news that the misunderstanding over what people thought was the American view and what is in fact the case can now be resolved and our reviewers jobs made much much easier.

Excellent news everyone. It seems that the powers that be in america have realised the fun of camping events and have made it possible to list camping events as "must sleep overnight" restriction. The exact wording that was allowed by New york adminreviewer was What other event is it acceptable and encouraged that you sleep through the event in order to attend? :-) To log this event, you must sign the log book after spending Saturday night camping with your fellow cachers Briansnat attended so it must have been ok to list it otherwise such an old and respected reviewer as he would have kicked off big time Here's the listing for us all to be able to see and use as a proforma :Mid-Winter Geo Survival Campout 2011